Better Childhoods Through Chemistry

OpedNews
by Evelyn Pringle and Martha Rosenberg

Where do parents and teachers get the idea there’s “something wrong” with their kid and only an expensive drug can fix it? From Pharma’s seamless web of ads, subsidized doctors, journals, medical courses and conferences, paid “patient” groups, phony public services messages and reporters willing to serve as stenographers.

Free stenography for Pharma from sympathetic media includes articles like “One in 40 Infants Experience Baby Blues, Doctors Say,” on ABC News and “Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children,” on Science Daily.

For many, the face of the drugs-not-hugs message is Harold Koplewicz M.D. author of the pop best seller It’s Nobody’s Fault , and former head of NYU’s prestigious Child Study Center. In a 1999 Salon article, Koplewicz reiterated his “no-fault” statement, assuring parents that psychiatric illness is not caused by bad parenting. “It is not that your mother got divorced, or that your father didn’t wipe you the right way,” he said. “It really is DNA roulette: You got blue eyes, blond hair, sometimes a musical ear, but sometimes you get the predisposition for depression.”

Many regard the NYU Child Study Center which Koplewicz founded and led before leaving in 2009 to start his own facility, as helping to usher in the world of brave new pediatric medicine in which children, toddlers and infants, once expected to outgrow their problems, are now diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems. The Child Study Center is “a threat to the health and welfare of children,” and its doctors are “hustlers working to increase their ‘client’ population and their commercial value to psychotropic drug manufacturers,” charged Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection.

A look at the Center’s stated mission provides no reassurance. Its goal of “eliminating the stigma of being or having a child with a psychiatric disorder,” and “influencing child-related public policy,” sounds a lot like a Pharma sales plan. And its boast about having “a structure that allows recruitment of patients for research studies and then provides ‘real-world’ testing for successful controlled-environment findings,” could send chills down the back of parents afraid their kids will be guinea pigs or money-making subjects.

In 2007, the fears of the Center’s skeptics were confirmed when it launched an aggressive, scare tactic marketing campaign called Ransom Notes in 2007. “We have your son,” said one ad, created with bits of disparate type like a ransom note from a kidnapper. “We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning”Autism.”

“We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It’s only going to get worse,” said another ad signed “Bulimia.”

“We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay,” said another add from “ADHD.” Other ransom ads came from “kidnappers” named Depression, Asperger’s Syndrome and OCD.

Created pro bono by advertising giant BBDO, the ads were planned to run in New York magazine, Newsweek , Parents, Education Update . Mental Health News and other publications and on 11 billboards and 200 kiosks said the press release.

Immediate Outrage

The hostage campaign drew immediate public outrage and more than a dozen advocacy groups joined together in an online petition calling for an end to it. “This is a demonstration of the assaultive tactics used by psychiatry today–in particular, academic psychiatrists and university based medical centers that are under the influence of their pharmaceutical partners,” Vera Sharav wrote in alerts to AHRP’s mailing list. “If Dr. Koplewicz et al are not stopped, the campaign will be hitting the rest of the country,” she warned, and informed readers that the campaign was formulated by BBDO, “a major direct to consumer prescription drug advertising firm,” asking the New York State Attorney General’s office to investigate.

Days after the backlash, the Center revoked the advertising campaign “after the effort drew a strongly negative reaction, ” reported the New York Times. Koplewicz told the Times the decision was made by the Center with no pressure from New York University and they planned to introduce a new campaign in the next three months. However, he left the Child Study Center at NYU in 2009 to start his own facility, initially called the “Child Study Center Foundation,” but changed to the “Child Mind Institute,” in 2010.

Though Koplewicz’ Child Mind Institute is supposedly a “non-profit,” it is ensconced on Park Avenue in Manhattan and Koplewicz’ hourly rate “can be as high as $1,000 (three to four times that of the average Manhattan therapist),” says the Times . In a chilling interview on Education Update Online about the Institute Koplewicz says the reason the facility works closely with schools “is simply that’s where the kids are,” drawing an analogy to Willy Sutton who said “the reason he robbed banks is that’s where the money is.”

Last month in the Wall Street Journal , Koplewicz wrote that “no studies have examined the effect of long-term use” of ADHD meds, but they “have been in use for 70 years, and there is no evidence that suggests any adverse effects.” But there has been a large federal study of the long-term effects of the drugs and it shows they are “ineffective over longer periods,” and “that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children’s growth,” reported the Washington Post. Oops.

Two features that characterize the pediatric medicine practiced by the pill enthusiasts are they term the “diseases” they identify under-treated and under-diagnosed and they urge early treatment when symptoms first appear. (Before the symptoms go away say cynics.)

Yet the very fact that such diseases are lifelong conditions is reason to wait to medicate kids say highly respected doctors. Nor can parents with medicated children know if their kids even needed the drugs since symptoms from the drugs are often called the “disease,” says Peter Breggin, M.D. recent interview.

One thing doctors on both sides of the pediatric drug controversy agree on is the decision to put a child on drugs will likely sentence him or her to a lifetime of medications. What they disagree about is whether that is good or bad thing.

Dr. Russell Blaylock: Fluoride’s Deadly Secret

From the Trenches World Report


Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. is a retired neurosurgeon and author whose trailblazing research has tirelessly documented the fact that there is an epidemic of neurological disorders in the western world which are directly connected to toxins in our environment, and how this relates to the larger global eugenics program behind population reduction. In this fascinating interview, Blaylock reveals how depopulation programs forged by the Rockefeller foundation in association with the Nazis were the basis of modern day incarnations of eugenics like fluoride poisoning and vaccinations.

Blaylock explains how the eugenics movement began in America through Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie funding and what originated as The Science of Man project, which was an effort to socially engineer humanity to weed out those deemed “undesirable” to the elite. Rockefeller funding via major universities then bankrolled eugenics programs for the next several years, information about which was gleaned and exchanged with the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany. Once eugenics had attracted the negative connotations of racial superiority and genocide, the pseudo-science was reborn under the umbrella of molecular biology and DNA.

The goal is to alter behavior by chemically changing the way in which the brain functions. One of the primary methods through which this is achieved is by fluoridating water and food supplies. Blaylock explains how fluoride opportunists seized upon falls in dental cavities, which were occurring naturally as a result of increased calcium intake and better diets in the west, to claim that mass fluoridation was the answer, while burying a plethora of studies that proved adding fluoride to water did not reduce cavities at all and in fact in several instances increased dental cavities.

Blaylock highlights how independent study after study has shown that fluoride increases cancer rates, increases bone disorders, which as Blaylock points out is a good way of increasing mortality rates amongst the elderly, and also leads to profound neurological disorders. Blaylock highlights the research of Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D, who during her tenure at Harvard University conducted one of the largest studies into fluoride’s effects on the brain in animals. Mullenix found that offspring of animals who had been fed fluoride became hyperactive (ADHD) and that if you gave an animal fluoride after birth they became very lethargic and apathetic. Mullenix discovered that fluoride tends to accumulate in the part of the brain that controls behavior. After revealing the truth about fluoride, Mullenix was later shunned and attacked by the medical establishment that she had once been a part of.

Blaylock delves into the dangers of vaccines and how they are part of the eugenics assault, pointing out that America’s infant mortality rates are impossibly high for a nation that is supposed to be a global leader in health care. Blaylock puts the number down to the fact that American babies are now being shot up with more vaccines than ever before, the rising number of which correlates exactly with levels of infant mortality. “When you over-vaccinate, it interferes with the development of the brain and then the child has difficulty learning, they have behavioral problems, and their brain cannot develop normally,” states Blaylock.

This is a key interview to watch if you want to get a firm grasp of how we are under attack from modern day eugenics. Blaylock frames the information in clear and easily understood verbiage so everyone can obtain a coherent understanding of how we are being targeted and what we can do to defend ourselves against this chemical and behavioral assault on humanity.

Better Childhoods Through Chemistry

by Evelyn Pringle and Martha Rosenberg

Where do parents and teachers get the idea there’s “something wrong” with their kid and only an expensive drug can fix it? From Pharma’s seamless web of ads, subsidized doctors, journals, medical courses and conferences, paid “patient” groups, phony public services messages and reporters willing to serve as stenographers.

Free stenography for Pharma from sympathetic media includes articles like “One in 40 Infants Experience Baby Blues, Doctors Say,” on ABC News and “Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children,” on Science Daily.

For many, the face of the drugs-not-hugs message is Harold Koplewicz M.D. author of the pop best seller It’s Nobody’s Fault , and former head of NYU’s prestigious Child Study Center. In a 1999 Salon article, Koplewicz reiterated his “no-fault” statement, assuring parents that psychiatric illness is not caused by bad parenting. “It is not that your mother got divorced, or that your father didn’t wipe you the right way,” he said. “It really is DNA roulette: You got blue eyes, blond hair, sometimes a musical ear, but sometimes you get the predisposition for depression.”

Many regard the NYU Child Study Center which Koplewicz founded and led before leaving in 2009 to start his own facility, as helping to usher in the world of brave new pediatric medicine in which children, toddlers and infants, once expected to outgrow their problems, are now diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems. The Child Study Center is “a threat to the health and welfare of children,” and its doctors are “hustlers working to increase their ‘client’ population and their commercial value to psychotropic drug manufacturers,” charged Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection.

A look at the Center’s stated mission provides no reassurance. Its goal of “eliminating the stigma of being or having a child with a psychiatric disorder,” and “influencing child-related public policy,” sounds a lot like a Pharma sales plan. And its boast about having “a structure that allows recruitment of patients for research studies and then provides ‘real-world’ testing for successful controlled-environment findings,” could send chills down the back of parents afraid their kids will be guinea pigs or money-making subjects.

In 2007, the fears of the Center’s skeptics were confirmed when it launched an aggressive, scare tactic marketing campaign called Ransom Notes in 2007. “We have your son,” said one ad, created with bits of disparate type like a ransom note from a kidnapper. “We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning”Autism.”

“We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It’s only going to get worse,” said another ad signed “Bulimia.”

“We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay,” said another add from “ADHD.” Other ransom ads came from “kidnappers” named Depression, Asperger’s Syndrome and OCD.

Created pro bono by advertising giant BBDO, the ads were planned to run in New York magazine, Newsweek , Parents, Education Update . Mental Health News and other publications and on 11 billboards and 200 kiosks said the press release.

Immediate Outrage

The hostage campaign drew immediate public outrage and more than a dozen advocacy groups joined together in an online petition calling for an end to it. “This is a demonstration of the assaultive tactics used by psychiatry today–in particular, academic psychiatrists and university based medical centers that are under the influence of their pharmaceutical partners,” Vera Sharav wrote in alerts to AHRP’s mailing list. “If Dr. Koplewicz et al are not stopped, the campaign will be hitting the rest of the country,” she warned, and informed readers that the campaign was formulated by BBDO, “a major direct to consumer prescription drug advertising firm,” asking the New York State Attorney General’s office to investigate.

Days after the backlash, the Center revoked the advertising campaign “after the effort drew a strongly negative reaction, ” reported the New York Times. Koplewicz told the Times the decision was made by the Center with no pressure from New York University and they planned to introduce a new campaign in the next three months. However, he left the Child Study Center at NYU in 2009 to start his own facility, initially called the “Child Study Center Foundation,” but changed to the “Child Mind Institute,” in 2010.

Though Koplewicz’ Child Mind Institute is supposedly a “non-profit,” it is ensconced on Park Avenue in Manhattan and Koplewicz’ hourly rate “can be as high as $1,000 (three to four times that of the average Manhattan therapist),” says the Times . In a chilling interview on Education Update Online about the Institute Koplewicz says the reason the facility works closely with schools “is simply that’s where the kids are,” drawing an analogy to Willy Sutton who said “the reason he robbed banks is that’s where the money is.”

Last month in the Wall Street Journal , Koplewicz wrote that “no studies have examined the effect of long-term use” of ADHD meds, but they “have been in use for 70 years, and there is no evidence that suggests any adverse effects.” But there has been a large federal study of the long-term effects of the drugs and it shows they are “ineffective over longer periods,” and “that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children’s growth,” reported the Washington Post. Oops.

Two features that characterize the pediatric medicine practiced by the pill enthusiasts are they term the “diseases” they identify under-treated and under-diagnosed and they urge early treatment when symptoms first appear. (Before the symptoms go away say cynics.)

Yet the very fact that such diseases are lifelong conditions is reason to wait to medicate kids say highly respected doctors. Nor can parents with medicated children know if their kids even needed the drugs since symptoms from the drugs are often called the “disease,” says Peter Breggin, M.D. in a recent interview.

One thing doctors on both sides of the pediatric drug controversy agree on is the decision to put a child on drugs will likely sentence him or her to a lifetime of medications. What they disagree about is whether that is good or bad thing.

Related:  Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children
Johnny get your pills
Millions of Children Held Hostage by Psychiatric Disorders 
Are ADHD Medications Overprescribed?
Conscience of Psychiatry

New Study Proves Mercury Exposure During Pregnancy Causes ADHD in Children

Activist Post
by Andrew Puhanic

Women who are planning to have a baby or who are already pregnant are now being warned to avoid foods containing mercury and are now being encouraged to eat more fish during pregnancy.

It is well-known that certain species of fish (shark, Barramundi and swordfish) contain high levels of mercury. Whereas, other species of fish such as snapper and salmon usually have relatively low levels of mercury. For a comprehensive list of fish to avoid, click here.

A new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine has concluded that children born from mothers who had been exposed to mercury before and during pregnancy are at risk of developing ADHD-related behaviors in their children.

Published by researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health, data was analysed from more than 780 children between 1993 and 1998 at St Luke’s Hospital, the primary hospital that services the population of greater New Bedford, Massachusetts.

The study was designed in response to the contamination of water in the New Bedford harbor from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) before dumping of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was banned.

For participants of the study that were found to have up to 1 microgram of mercury per gram of hair, their consumption of fish was associated with a lower risk of ADHD-type behaviours in their children.

Interestingly, for participants of the study who had more that 1 microgram of mercury per gram of hair, it was concluded that there was an increased risk of ADHD-type behaviours in their children.

Mothers that were selected to participate in the study had to meet the following conditions:
Their children must have been born at St Luke’s Hospital, New Bedford.  They must have been at least 18 years old.  Lived in 1 of the 4 towns adjacent to the contaminated harbor during their pregnancy.

The researchers also found strong protective associations for mothers who consumed fish during pregnancy (of the safe types listed at the beginning of this article). The results are supported by data from a well-characterized birth cohort.

Interestingly, children of mothers who adjusted their total fish consumption (eating varying quantities) did not, in most instances, change associations between mercury levels and ADHD. Also, it was discovered that high mercury levels were found in mothers who were categorized as:

Mothers who were older.
Mother who were married.
Mothers who had a higher household income.
Mother who did not smoke during pregnancy or use illicit drugs the year before birth.
Mothers who consumed more fish during pregnancy, and had children of white race.

In general, the researchers also found no strong correlation to whether males or females were more prone to developing ADHD when exposed to mercury. However, it was noted that associations were stronger in boys.

The findings presented in this study are consistent with the growing literature that proves mothers who are exposed to mercury during pregnancy increase the risk of their unborn child developing ADHD-related behaviours.

The good news is that there is now more evidence to suggest that consumption of fish during pregnancy has a positive impact on fetal brain development.

Behavioral Disorders in Children from Cellphone Use During Pregnancy

Natural Society

Moms-to-be might want to add a little distance between their unborn children and cell phones. The Yale School of Medicine released a study on the effect of radiofrequency radiation on fetal mice this week. Researchers concluded that it would be “sensible” for pregnant women to limit babies’ exposure to all wireless devices, as simply using the devices could help lead to behavioral disorders in children.

Behavioral Disorders in Children, ADHD and Unborn Mice

“This is the first experimental evidence that fetal exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cellular telephones does in fact affect adult behavior,” said Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, head author of the study.

For the experiment, Taylor and other researchers placed a silenced cell phone above the cage of pregnant mice for all 19 days of gestation. All rodents born in the exposed group faced a series of psychological and behavioral tests; the exposed mice were more hyperactive and had reduced memory capacity. Taylor believes the exposure affected the rodents’ development of neurons in the prefrontal cortex of the brain.

“The rise in behavioral disorders in human children may be in part due to fetal cellular telephone irradiation exposure,” Taylor concluded, though admitting more research was needed.

Differences in Mice and Men

Meanwhile, experts from the University College of London scorned the study as alarmist for comparing mice—smaller in size with a significantly shorter gestation period—to people.

The dose of radiation the unborn mice were exposed to was, in their view, disproportionate to the amount received by a human fetus due to size and brain development stage differences between the two species – essentially saying that behavioral disorders in children due cellphone radiation exposure simply isn’t an issue. One might note, however, that 9 months of gestation compared to 19 days might change the results, too.

More Studies Needed

The DailyMail received word from the Health Protection Agency, however, that the latter “constantly monitors and reviews this scientific research and will consider this study, along with other peer reviewed research, as part of that process.”

Keep in mind: two years ago, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, concluded in a study involving 29,000 children that behavioral disorders in children were more likely to occur due to cellphone exposure. In fact, those exposed to cell phones in utero were 30 percent more likely to have behavioral problems by age 7. Skeptical scientists claimed that other factors—such as the attentiveness of mothers obsessed with cell phone use—might have been at play.

Natural News

British registered company, GlaxoSmithKline, faces $3 billion in penalties after pleading guilty to the biggest health care fraud case in history. GSK admitted that physicians had been bribed to push potentially dangerous drugs in exchange for Madonna tickets, Hawaiian holidays, cash and lucrative speaking tours. They also admitted distributing misleading information regarding the antidepressant Paxil. The report claimed that it was suitable for children, but failed to acknowledge data from studies proving its ineffectiveness in children and adolescents.

GSK faced charges that they had used the gifts to sell three drugs that were either unsafe, or used for purposes that were not approved. The first drug, Paxil also known as Seroxat, was touted as safe and effective for children and adolescents. The ineffectiveness of Paxil, and the link to suicides, meant that it was banned for kids under 18-years-olds in 2008.

The second drug, Avandia was used in Britain to treat diabetes until it was withdrawn due to safety fears, including increased risk of heart attacks. The US government claimed that GSK had attempted to conceal the data surrounding the dangers.

The third drug, Wellbutrin is used in the UK for treating depression, but it was alleged that GSK had recommended physicians used it for ADHD, lost libido and as a slimming aid. None of which were approved uses for the drug.

The moral code of Big Pharma companies exposed

Sir Andrew Witty, chief executive of GSK said “Whilst these offenses originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored. On behalf of GSK, I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learned from the mistakes that were made. We are deeply committed to doing everything we can to live up to and exceed the expectations of those we work with and serve. In the US, we have taken action at all levels in the company. We have fundamentally changed our procedures for compliance, marketing and selling.”

US attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz said: “The GSK sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations to paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to a European pheasant hunt, to tickets to Madonna concerts.”

This is the biggest settlement in the history of drug industries, ahead of the 2009 Pfizer case in which it was fined $2.2 billion for promoting four drugs for unapproved uses. In 2010, GSK paid $96 million to a whistle-blower who exposed contamination problems and a management cover up in Puerto Rico.

The practice of pushing drugs for unapproved uses is endemic within the drug industries. Two of the largest drug companies have been caught and fined huge amounts for chasing sales targets using any means necessary. It proves that the health of customers, even children, ranks lower on the companies’ agenda than profit. Using bribes to get doctors to prescribe drugs shows a complete lack of moral fiber from both sales teams and the doctors. After this case, surely the doctors also need to face the courts for their conduct.

Whilst the amounts of money seem to be a huge punishment for GSK, the settlement is merely a slap on the wrist for a company whose market value is $133 billion. Can we trust another multinational that promises to clean up its act, when others have promised the same, only to behave just as recklessly but much more surreptitiously.